|
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>, > Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > >>>Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set your >>>intervals accordingly. >> >>I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. > > > So you have no homeowner's insurance? No car insurance? After all, > your house will never burn down and you don't ever plan on getting into > an accident, therefore you don't need those things. > Comparing oil changes to insurance is simply stupid. They aren't equivalent at all. You buy insurance to help when crap happens. You don't change oil to help when your engine fails. How will an oil change give you the money to buy a new engine? Changing oil is more analogous to installing a sprinkler system in your house. It is to prevent something, not mitigate the damages. And changing your oil too often is like installing a sprinkler system in a concrete building full of concrete blocks. It doesn't add any additional fire protection and is thus a waste of money. Just as is changing the oil more often than is necessary. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>, > Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > >>I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan >>had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes. >>The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent >>changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists, >>unfortunately. I've looked for years. > > > http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html > Other than being an argument not to buy a Toyota, this site is meaningless. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>, > Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > >>I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan >>had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes. >>The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent >>changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists, >>unfortunately. I've looked for years. > > > http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html > Other than being an argument not to buy a Toyota, this site is meaningless. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <WKPAg.218$Db4.20494@news1.epix.net>, > Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > >>I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My minivan >>had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K changes. >>The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that more frequent >>changes extend engine life, because no such evidence exists, >>unfortunately. I've looked for years. > > > http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html > Other than being an argument not to buy a Toyota, this site is meaningless. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > >> jim beam wrote: >> >>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>> >>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>, >>>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced >>>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the >>>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "must"? No. >>>>> >>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for >>>>> an engine than oil changes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil >>>> it isn't all that cheap. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set >>>>> your intervals accordingly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles >>>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the >>>> warranty runs out. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals >>>>> (or even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are >>>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My >>>> minivan had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K >>>> changes. The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that >>>> more frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence >>>> exists, unfortunately. I've looked for years. >>>> >>>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based >>>> on data. >>> >>> >>> >>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place. >>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i >>> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the >>> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too >>> hostile either. >> >> >> Yes, and you are currently winning. >> >> >>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes >>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely >>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to >>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong. >> >> >> OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs. >> engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs. >> 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up. >> >> Matt > > > no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no > difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think > where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net > that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is > reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is > huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable > limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear > rates to a lower level. They may, but I've seen no documented proof as to when this is meaningful. Post some of your fleet testing results. If my engine will last 200K with 10,000 miles intervals and the body rusts off at 200K, what is the point of reducing engine wear? And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as that would reduce wear even more right? How about 500 miles? Why not change it every morning before going to work? Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > >> jim beam wrote: >> >>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>> >>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>, >>>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced >>>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the >>>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "must"? No. >>>>> >>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for >>>>> an engine than oil changes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil >>>> it isn't all that cheap. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set >>>>> your intervals accordingly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles >>>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the >>>> warranty runs out. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals >>>>> (or even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are >>>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My >>>> minivan had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K >>>> changes. The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that >>>> more frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence >>>> exists, unfortunately. I've looked for years. >>>> >>>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based >>>> on data. >>> >>> >>> >>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place. >>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i >>> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the >>> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too >>> hostile either. >> >> >> Yes, and you are currently winning. >> >> >>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes >>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely >>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to >>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong. >> >> >> OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs. >> engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs. >> 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up. >> >> Matt > > > no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no > difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think > where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net > that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is > reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is > huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable > limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear > rates to a lower level. They may, but I've seen no documented proof as to when this is meaningful. Post some of your fleet testing results. If my engine will last 200K with 10,000 miles intervals and the body rusts off at 200K, what is the point of reducing engine wear? And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as that would reduce wear even more right? How about 500 miles? Why not change it every morning before going to work? Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > >> jim beam wrote: >> >>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>> >>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>> >>>>> In article <J3HAg.15775$Ju.2709@trndny09>, >>>>> Brian Nystrom <brian.nystrom@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I was referring more to the people who are absolutely convinced >>>>>> that they must change their oil more frequently than the >>>>>> recommended 7500 mile intervals. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "must"? No. >>>>> >>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance for >>>>> an engine than oil changes. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> But it is wasted money, no matter how cheap. And with synthetic oil >>>> it isn't all that cheap. >>>> >>>> >>>>> Figure out how much you want to pay for that insurance, and set >>>>> your intervals accordingly. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I prefer to not pay for things I don't need. I change at 5K miles >>>> now because it is easy to remember. I change at 10K when the >>>> warranty runs out. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If you want to keep the car a long, long time, then 3K intervals >>>>> (or even 5K if you bought the car new and are using good oil) are >>>>> extremely cheap yet very effective insurance. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I keep my cars a long, long time at 5K and 10K intervals. My >>>> minivan had 178,000 when it was totaled and it was doing fine on 10K >>>> changes. The reality is that you have absolutely no evidence that >>>> more frequent changes extend engine life, because no such evidence >>>> exists, unfortunately. I've looked for years. >>>> >>>> We call make decisions that make us comfortable, but none are based >>>> on data. >>> >>> >>> >>> what is this? a stupidity contest? data abounds all over the place. >>> and have you ever examined a stripped motor under a microscope? i >>> have. wear is directly proportional to contaminant content of the >>> lubricant. seals don't exactly thrive when oil chemistry gets too >>> hostile either. >> >> >> Yes, and you are currently winning. >> >> >>> bottom line: if you're trying to in some way assert that modern lubes >>> are better than the old stuff of our forefathers, you'd be absolutely >>> correct. but saying that contamination levels make no difference to >>> wear rates and therefore engine life is dead wrong. >> >> >> OK, show me the data. Show me the graphs of contaminant levels vs. >> engine life in miles. Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs. >> 10,000 make a difference. Put up or shut up. >> >> Matt > > > no matt - you're the one making the assertion that it makes no > difference. i know it does because i've done fleet testing. i think > where you're getting confused is reading glib little articles on the net > that cleverly avoid the distinction between phrases like: "wear is > reduced" and "wear is within acceptable limits". the difference is > huge. sure, wear at extended intervals /can/ be within acceptable > limits, but that doesn't mean that sorter intervals don't reduce wear > rates to a lower level. They may, but I've seen no documented proof as to when this is meaningful. Post some of your fleet testing results. If my engine will last 200K with 10,000 miles intervals and the body rusts off at 200K, what is the point of reducing engine wear? And why not change oil at 1,000 miles rather than 3,000 as that would reduce wear even more right? How about 500 miles? Why not change it every morning before going to work? Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > >> jim beam wrote: >> >>> Brian Nystrom wrote: >>> >>>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>>> >>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>, >>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance >>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're right to a point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An >>>>>>> engine usually >>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from >>>>>>> infrequent >>>>>>> oil changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which parts and how do they fail? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-) >>> >>> >>> >>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the >>> ignorant want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses >>> on down to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is >>> your word of the day. look it up. >> >> >> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen. >> >> Matt > > > t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it. Trust me I have. That isn't data. Obviously, you have no data. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > >> jim beam wrote: >> >>> Brian Nystrom wrote: >>> >>>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>>> >>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>, >>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance >>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're right to a point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An >>>>>>> engine usually >>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from >>>>>>> infrequent >>>>>>> oil changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which parts and how do they fail? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-) >>> >>> >>> >>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the >>> ignorant want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses >>> on down to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is >>> your word of the day. look it up. >> >> >> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen. >> >> Matt > > > t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it. Trust me I have. That isn't data. Obviously, you have no data. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote: > >> jim beam wrote: >> >>> Brian Nystrom wrote: >>> >>>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>>> >>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>, >>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance >>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're right to a point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An >>>>>>> engine usually >>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from >>>>>>> infrequent >>>>>>> oil changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which parts and how do they fail? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-) >>> >>> >>> >>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the >>> ignorant want to stand about and mock when they could get their asses >>> on down to a library and do some freakin' homework? "tribology" is >>> your word of the day. look it up. >> >> >> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen. >> >> Matt > > > t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it. Trust me I have. That isn't data. Obviously, you have no data. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <LNRAg.222$Db4.20620@news1.epix.net>, > Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > >>Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs. >>10,000 make a difference. > > > http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html I think your cut and paste keys are stuck. This is meaningless and you can't even figure that out. This isn't a test and doesn't show anything related to the topic at hand. It shows a failed engine with unknown history. If you think that is data, then you have much to learn. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <LNRAg.222$Db4.20620@news1.epix.net>, > Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > >>Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs. >>10,000 make a difference. > > > http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html I think your cut and paste keys are stuck. This is meaningless and you can't even figure that out. This isn't a test and doesn't show anything related to the topic at hand. It shows a failed engine with unknown history. If you think that is data, then you have much to learn. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <LNRAg.222$Db4.20620@news1.epix.net>, > Matt Whiting <whiting@epix.net> wrote: > > >>Show me that oil changes at 3,000 miles vs. >>10,000 make a difference. > > > http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/sludg...ng_sludge.html I think your cut and paste keys are stuck. This is meaningless and you can't even figure that out. This isn't a test and doesn't show anything related to the topic at hand. It shows a failed engine with unknown history. If you think that is data, then you have much to learn. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> jim beam wrote: > >> Matt Whiting wrote: >> >>> jim beam wrote: >>> >>>> Brian Nystrom wrote: >>>> >>>>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>, >>>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance >>>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're right to a point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An >>>>>>>> engine usually >>>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from >>>>>>>> infrequent >>>>>>>> oil changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which parts and how do they fail? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the >>>> ignorant want to stand about and mock when they could get their >>>> asses on down to a library and do some freakin' homework? >>>> "tribology" is your word of the day. look it up. >>> >>> >>> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen. >>> >>> Matt >> >> >> t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it. > > > duh, i should learn to spell > > t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y Yes, and then learn about relevance. Matt |
Re: Determining oil change intervals via analysis
jim beam wrote:
> jim beam wrote: > >> Matt Whiting wrote: >> >>> jim beam wrote: >>> >>>> Brian Nystrom wrote: >>>> >>>>> Matt Whiting wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> In article <gdr6d25l6q81rg35lo413cj8v9ff7pfhfn@4ax.com>, >>>>>>> Bob Adkins <bobad@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Cheap insurance"? ABSOLUTELY. There is no cheaper insurance >>>>>>>>> for an engine than oil changes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're right to a point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> However, engine failures are seldom directly oil-related. An >>>>>>>> engine usually >>>>>>>> fails from part failure or abuse long before they wear out from >>>>>>>> infrequent >>>>>>>> oil changes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, but parts can easily fail due to infrequent oil changes. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Which parts and how do they fail? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This should be interesting. I can't wait to see his reply... ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> so you've never worked in a repair shop then? what makes the >>>> ignorant want to stand about and mock when they could get their >>>> asses on down to a library and do some freakin' homework? >>>> "tribology" is your word of the day. look it up. >>> >>> >>> Just as I thought. No data, just smoke screen. >>> >>> Matt >> >> >> t-r-i-b-o-l-g-y matt. read about it. > > > duh, i should learn to spell > > t-r-i-b-o-l-o-g-y Yes, and then learn about relevance. Matt |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:32 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands